On June 29-30, the Syrian Democratic Council held a dialogue workshop in the French capital of Paris, which was attended by representatives from a broad spectrum of national democratic trends. The workshop was attended by political and human rights activist Aktham Naisa, where the Media office of the Syrian Democratic Council held this dialogue with him.
As one of the participants in the Paris workshop organized by the Syrian Democratic Council, how do you assess the workshop and the dialogue agenda presented in the workshop?
This workshop was important and I consider it one of the most important workshops that dealt with the Syrian situation in depth, clarity, with a spirit of responsibility and transparency in theses as significant points were discussed. And it is noteworthy that the discussions took place quietly and at a high level of dialogue. As for organization and conduct of the meetings, they were more than good. The Syrian Democratic Council was grateful for accepting criticisms. I believe this is a new democratic precedent in the administration of important dialogues related to national affairs and the future of the country.
The Syrian Democratic Council adopted the project of democratic decentralization as a solution to the intractable Syrian crisis and was able to build a model in north and east of Syria in the form of Autonomous Administration (AA). Do you think democratic decentralization and its model of Autonomous Administration fit the Syrian situation?
Autonomous Administration is a unique experience in Syria. It is the first democratic experiment. Syria has never experienced such a democratic experiment. It is a pioneering experience in the democratic context of a new Syria. As a human and social experience, it is normal to have mistakes. It can only be achieved through objective criticism and evaluated through such workshops. In this context, I believe that AA is proceeding in a true democratic way. We can say that AA is the ideal and exemplary way to achieve democracy. It is an important experiment to build new democratic values and principles that we have not used to before in Syria. In my opinion, AA should be circulated throughout the Syrian territory in accordance political decentralization within a federal state that takes into consideration the specificity of all Syrian components and determines the authorities of self-administrations according to general constitution of the country.
The Syrian file has recently been subjected to intense diplomatic mobility, both by the active states and the international envoy, Geir Pederson. In light of the current structure of the Syrian Negotiating Body and the Constitutional Committee and their exclusion to other active parties such as the Syrian Democratic Council, could there be a real breakthrough in this direction?
The active and influential countries in the Syrian file except Turkey realized the seriousness of the Syrian Democratic Council in finding a real way out of the Syrian crisis and achieving democracy. This international approach towards the Syrian Democratic Council came after its experiences with the various Syrian opposition groups in all its formations and that they were only the other side of the regime, and even perhaps by religious and sectarian dimensions, they are more violent if they are allowed to govern Syria. Therefore, the active countries realized that these groups cannot be depended on after being provided with political, and even media support. These countries played a role in forming many opposition platforms while allowing these groups to exclude the Syrian Democratic Council and its representatives, but now they realized that the real bet must be on the Syrian Democratic Council and the experience of AA and its importance. Therefore, SDC should have an active role in the future of Syria. The translation of these trends came through the diplomatic movement witnessed in north and east of Syria and I think there will be a real breakthrough to restructure of the Syrian Negotiating Body and even the structure of the Opposition Coalition. So there will be an important representation of SDC and AA in the Negotiating Body.
How do you read the situation in the province of Idlib and are teams of Astana able to resolve the battle?
*The province of Idlib is the last paper in the negotiation, especially for Turkey, the Turkish regime will be in trouble if it lost Idleb paper and will be stripped as an occupied state. It now occupies a large part of north of Syrian / Afrin-Jarablis- alBab-Azzaz / its presence in the north of Syria is illegal and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. Turkey’s policy and will is to cut off the north of Syrian and annex it to Turkey, but it has been forced to accept the status quo and was forced to accept the safe zone. The issue for Turkey is not finding a safe area, but rather the basic issue is hostility to the entire Kurdish people and its cause. It rejects any democratic experiments and sees them that they are hostile to it . The situation in Idlib is also important to the Syrian regime and the rest of Istana groups, and the fierce military battles there indicate their political importance in the future of negotiation, they are battles of bone fracture among the parties of Astana, too. I think that the current situation in Idlib will not be resolved unless within the framework of a final solution to the Syrian crisis. The crisis will continue until major countries agree to solve the Syrian crisis.
How can the solution be in Syria in the presence and occupation of Turkey to northern Syria, especially in Afrin, which Turkey seeks to annex after the construction of a partition wall around it?
The Turkish state is a real obstacle in front of the course of the Syrian solution. There is a Turkish occupation of large parts of Syrian territory and all forms of violations are practiced through its mercenaries. In addition to Afrin, Turkey occupies vast areas from north of Syrian to Lattakia countryside. It will not offer or give up these lands on a silver plate. I think that Turkey will be forced to retreat from its occupation, but this situation may take a lot of time and battles. The Turkish regime is now in a critical situation due to its bad relations with the United States, its intransigence and its policies, as well as the thoughtless policy of the Turkish regime, which caused crises inside Turkey. Therefore, Turkey is unlikely to launch further attacks in the east of the Euphrates